The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the portion dismissed by an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The value of the property or profit on property as prescribed in Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "amount of profit") means the actual amount of profit.

The Defendant established and performed an internal aid to the victims, and paid 135,828,030 won in total with the cost of installation. The Defendant paid 91,745,125 won with the communications cost of the victims. The Defendant’s amount of profit is less than 500 million won when deducting the total amount of the expenses from KRW 711,318,40 with the amount received from the victims. Thus, the Defendant does not constitute an offense under Article 3(1)2 of the above Act.

The punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In the case of fraud involving the deception of property by deception as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, if there is a delivery of property due to deception, it itself constitutes a crime of fraud by infringing on the victim's property, and it has been paid a reasonable price.

shall not cause any damage to the entire property of the victim.

Even if the crime of fraud does not affect the establishment of fraud, even if some of the price has been paid in fraud, it shall be the whole property received, not the difference between the value of the property given from the victim and the price therefor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1899, Jul. 7, 2000). The "amount of profit" under Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes does not affect the conclusion of whether the sum of the values of the property or property gains acquired or let a third party acquire by the criminal act is ultimately the realizing such profit or not.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1614, May 26, 2006). In light of the above legal principles, the total sum of money that the Defendant received as a free money purchase price by deceiving victims is the amount obtained by deceit.